A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Reach Out and Put on the Burka

It hasn't take Obama long to reveal his true colors. There are as many moderate Taliban members as there are moderate Nazis or KluKlux Klan members. The Taliban sheltered Osama be Laden (remember him?): the man who engineered the worse terrorist attack on US soil in our history on September 11, 2001. Have we (has Obama) already forgotten? The Taliban is an an extremist Islamic party that wants women uneducated and covered from head to toe and which wants the infidels dead or subjected to themselves as dhimmis. These are the enemies of God, of civilization, and of the United States. To look for moderate members to negotiate with is to dine with the devil. Yet this is the essential problem with contemporary liberalism: it has no strong sense of real evil in the world. "Problems" are mere effects of root causes (economic and cultural). This makes for a Utopian foreign policy.

Many of us knew that Obama was soft on terrorism and ignorant (or worse) to the true nature of Islam as a totalisticideology. (See the writings of Mark Gabriel, especially Islam and Terrorism and Culture Clash). We warned you. Now we all have to live with the absurd and .abominable results.

10 comments:

"Though almost no one refers to the entire medieval period as the "dark ages" anymore, the years from the fifth through the fifteenth century were often gloomy. Western Christendom battled Islam to the south and east, barbarians to the north and west, and plagues, famines, and feudal warfare at home. Then there was the problem of heresy, sprouting both local varieties and exotic foreign species.

Of the former strain, thirteenth-century Catharism was viewed as perhaps the most poisonous. At least it elicited the fiercest response. First the Cathars weathered a particularly vicious crusade: 20,000 people were slaughtered in the city of Beziers alone after the monk in charge of the assault, when asked how to distinguish heretics from Catholics, replied, "Kill them all, God will know his own." Surviving Cathars then became the original targets of the Inquisition."

From an article by Elesha Coffman, associate editor of CHRISTIAN HISTORY

"We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig. Cow after cow. Village after village. Army after army."

What does your source have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, it seems; I find no parallels whatsoever. What are you thinking. That to oppose the Taliban and not let them take back Afghanistan is to be a medieval persecutor of heretics?

I know that you are not suggesting that the solution to the Muslim/Islamist problem is annihilation, although I am not sure that at some time, effectively, that may not be what it comes down to. Sam Harris has criticized the Liberal West for not recognizing that this conflict is fundamentally a conflict between Islam and the rest of civilization, there are no "moderate" Muslims.

It seems to me that we are in an extremely difficult situation in the middle east, hopefully it is not an impossible situation. I do not suggest that we should hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban. I do know that President Karzai "welcomed" Obama's statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090308/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_15

I am not a pacifist, primarily because of the perception I have of World War II and our struggle against Fascism and fascist aggression and the horrors perpetrated by the Nazi's. I respect and even admire those rare people whose conscience is so comitted to peace that they will not take up arms. If there were more of them and less of us would the world not be a better place? In any event, Obama pursuing political avenues as part of the solution to the Afghan problem does not amount to our capitulation to the Taliban. Unfortunately it seems that much of the Muslim world has rejected the social benefits that can be realized with a more secular approach to the world.

Some 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died as a result of the Viet Nam War with no apparent benefit being gained by anyone. I don't think that had we stayed in Viet Nam the end results would have been any better, although we should have provided any Vietnamese who desired relocation to the United States that opportunity prior to the Communist takeover of the south. I hope that our incursions in Afghanistan and Iraq have some lasting benefit to humanity.

Steve:I’m curious, what do you mean by a “more secular approach to the world”? Where do you think most of our moral values come from? They come from a solid Judeo-Christian view of morality. That is hardly secular! The idea of standing up for justice, mercy and help for the oppressed (the women under the Taliban) can be directly taken from Jesus’ affirmation of women choosing education: “…for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” Luke 10:42 (Regarding Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet to learn from Him)

Lisa,It has been said that Neo Conservatives (Neo Reaganites) and the Taliban (Islamist Mujahadeen) have two tings in common. First, they both think they caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Second, they both hate Secular Humanism (Western Liberalism) more than they hate each other. I am not well versed in any discipline, not least of all philosophy, history, or the history of philosophy, so please don't attribute more weight to my musings than I give them myself, which is to say, not much.

While I have been led to understand that some folks have the perception that this somewhat amorphous outlook or philosophy called secularism is anethema to Truth, it seems to me that the development of scientific culture (not Scientism) and Liberal Democracy have been dependent on this curious development in thought. I do know that when I read a short news article recently about provincial elections in Iraq that mentioned that "secular" candidates had tended to do better than their "sectarian" rivals it gave me some hope for the future of Democracy in Iraq. That may just be wishful, or just flat-out wrong, thinking on my part. From my perspective what the Middle East could really benefit from is a healthy infusion of secularism into their thinking. I do not see secularism as being inherently in opposition to a religious outlook on life, although some do.

Since I am just now meeting you, and may not meet you again, let me conclude by advising you to look into life as deeply as you are able and to consider what you encounter as broadly as you can. Conclusions held tentatively tend not to obstruct our learning as much as those to which we refuse to relinquish. That's my "Big Wisdom" for today!

I agree with Doug, your comments don't make any sense regarding this post. And when you said, "there are no "moderate" Muslims."... if that were true we would all be dead by now. It's because the majority of Muslims ARE moderate is that we have a chance to stop the fire before it spreads. See works by Nabeel Jabbour on this idea of moderate Muslims.

Steve,Thank you for clarifying your meaning for me in reference to your use of the word “secular”…That helps me to understand where you were coming from. I would have to agree with you; that would be a hopeful sign for the future in Iraq, to add more secular candidates as it would add voices of moderation into their government. I do admit that I do not follow some of these developments as closely as I should. But I do enjoy adding my comments occasionally, but if I get “too big for my britches” feel free to let me know!

I am not entirely sure my comments make any sense either, so that makes at least two of us! The comment about "no moderate Muslims" is actually a paraphrased or abbreviated thought of Sam Harris'(a high profile atheist) and not my own. I have read different accounts of the nature of Islam and Muslims, but have practically no real experience with Muslims of my own to draw upon. I hope that you are correct in your assesment that most Muslims are in fact moderates. The future looks much brighter to me just thinking that they may be able to find other means to advance themselves and their causes than through perpetual warfare. We have all seen what a horrible toll war extracts from mankind. Personally, I think warfare really should be the absolute last resort. It is always better for people to try to resolve their differences through dialog and discussion. It is always better to find some common ground to build peace upon than to separate ourselves from each other by an unbridgeable "no man's land" of bloodshed. Does this seem reasonable to you? Holler back if I can clarify something for you!

Too big for your breeches!? Come on girl, there are never any silly questions! Sometimes it's pretty hard to communicate easily or clearly while writing. It is really true that many words may have several different meanings to different people. I am glad you asked me to try to clarify what I was trying to say. I am even gladder (is that a real word? well, it is now!) that we are on the same page. I have encountered some people who think that "secular" is a bad word, and, depending on a person's point of view, it may be. I think that a person can be "secular" and still be very religious. Of course a person can be "secular" and not be religious at all. This world of ours is just full of possibilities, and we only know about some of them! Thanks again for your question.

Links

About Me

Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.